arXiv preprint ·

Rethinking Inline Citation Verification in Scholarly Communication

Xinrui Fang, Reese Fairchild, Nasi Wang, Anran Xu, Simo Hosio, Sylvain Malacria and Koji Yatani

Published
Source
arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
Original
Read it at arXiv
Topics
Human-Computer Interaction

Abstract

Inline citations are central to scholarly communication, yet verifying their use is becoming increasingly challenging because of growing review pressures. We conducted a mixed-methods exploratory study to investigate how reviewers verify inline citations, the factors shaping their verification practices, and how they envision GenAI supporting this process. Across interviews (n=12) and a survey (n=203) of reviewers from HCI and AI venues, we found that reviewers' perceptions of citation importance, verification practices, and desired AI autonomy varied across citation types, reviewer characteristics, and research backgrounds. These findings highlight the need for adaptive support tailored to different citation types and reviewer practices, while revealing diverse preferences regarding the use of GenAI for this process. Moreover, effective citation verification should involve collaboration among reviewers, authors, and the broader research community, rather than relying solely on individual reviewers.

The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.

Read it on ReadSearch

Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.

Already a reader? Sign in

All new papers in Human-Computer Interaction

Get the few papers worth your time in Human-Computer Interaction every morning.

ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.

Papers belong to their authors and publishers; every page here links to the original. All research topics